ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2016
The impact of brush cytology from endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on patient management at a UK teaching hospital.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Brush-Based Cytology Vs Biopsy: a Comparative Diagnostic Study.Maedica · 2025Article
- Indeterminate Biliary Strictures: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A high-volume ERCP service led by surgeons is associated with good outcomes and meets national key performance indicators: results from a British district general hospital.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Accuracy of brush cytology in biliopancreatic strictures: a single-center cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography guided interventions in the management of pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Review
- Comparison between Brush Cytology and Forceps Biopsy under Fluoroscopic Guidance for the Diagnosis of Proximal Cholangiocarcinoma.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2020Article
- Challenging biliary strictures: pathophysiological features, differential diagnosis, diagnostic algorithms, and new clinically relevant biomarkers - part 1.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Pathological sampling of biliary stenosis: is fluoroscopic guidance sufficient or not?Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with suspected pancreaticobiliary cancers frequently undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to obtain brush cytology for confirmatory diagnosis. The outcome of this often leads to the management of the patient and can avoid more invasive investigations. There is a wide range of sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature.
aimsTo determine the accuracy of the brush cytology obtained at ERCP by performing a retrospective audit of all patients admitted to Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital for ERCP during 2008-2013. Also, to evaluate the impact of cytology results on patient care following ERCP.
methodData were collected from 4 January 2008 to 27 December 2013. This involved analysing EndoSoft (the in-house software for endoscopic data entry), Pathnet (the pathology database) and Electronic Patient Records.
results162 patients underwent brush cytology during ERCP. 58 patients had positive cytology. With intention-to-treat analysis, sensitivity was 54.7%, specificity was 100.0% and negative predictive value was 53.9% with a positive predictive value of 100%. Patients with a positive brush cytology result required fewer investigations compared with patients with a negative cytology result.
conclusionsOur results compare favourably with previous studies in the field. Brush cytology has been ignored in recent times due to perceived poor results and efficacy. Our audit shows that it can reduce the number of investigations required to reach a diagnosis of malignancy and so is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. However, better guidance on preparation of samples for cytology is needed to reduce the number of insufficient samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.